Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.

That's palimony. Not the same thing. But yeah, you live with someone and share your assets, that can wind up in court.

I have a cold, so I'm a little off my game today but that sounds like the stupidest law ever enacted. Whatever happened to freedom of will and freedom of choice?

Wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply say: 'You all can now marry like straight folks and enjoy all the misery involved like the rest of us'? Those not wanting the expense of a wedding could simply go to a justice of the peace with a marriage license.

It sounds like a victory for Gays, yet it's kind of like a spiteful smack in the face. Kind of like 'Ya wanna be married? OK, fine! Now any of you living together are legally married -- so STFU!'

mbillips:Corvus: mbillips: This doesn't affect people in "common-law" relationships in the slightest.

It's common law MARRIAGE. It's identical to marriage in eyes of the law. Pretending it's not marriage is just not true.

In fact in common law MARRIAGE you must say you are MARRIED or it doesn't make you married. So saying it's not marriage is BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Common law marriage differs from statutory marriage as follows:

There is no marriage license issued by a government and no marriage certificate filed with a governmentThere is no formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage before witnessesThe parties must hold themselves out to the world as husband and wife (this is not a requirement of statutory marriage)Most jurisdictions require the parties to be cohabiting at the time the common law marriage is formed. Some require cohabitation to last a certain length of time (e.g. three years) for the marriage to be valid. But cohabitation alone does not create a marriage. The parties must intend their relationship to be, and to be regarded as, a legally valid marriage.

So to say in a Common-law relationship your not "married" is BS because that is one thing you actually have to do for your common law marriage to be recognized.

Common-law "marriages" can still be contracted in only nine U.S. states. If you happen to be in one of those backwards yokel holes, then, yeah, you're married. But in the civilized part of the country, that's not an option.

/Yes, that was a specific fark you to Texas, what of it?

I don't get your point. Just because it can only happen in 9 states doesn't change it's definition.

mbillips:insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law//All the same benefits///Just don't call me married

You have no idea what you're talking about. "Common-law" relationships without a marriage license qualify for NO federal benefits. You want the married tax status, you get married, full stop. State benefits vary by state, but most states don't recognize "common-law" relationships for legal purposes. No automatic inheritance, medical rights, nothing. You don't have to have a church wedding to be married; you just go down to the courthouse and a justice of the peace signs the license.

Buddy, I'm in Canada and I enjoy all the benefits of marriage without being married. You have no idea what you are talking about. You do realize that people outside of America use this site, right? Also, you would have to be an idiot to not know you can get married outside of the church. That doesn't change the fact that getting married still lends credibility to organized religions. It's the same as someone who doesn't go to church, doesn't read the bible, knows virtually nothing about religion, but wears a cross necklace and tells people they're catholic or some sh*t. I can't stand that.

Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.

That's palimony. Not the same thing. But yeah, you live with someone and share your assets, that can wind up in court.

I don't have a GED in law, but the website specifically addresses the division of assets and debts, which doesn't sound at all like palimony, which I see defined as 'alimony for unmarried couples who break up'.

Rik01:I have a cold, so I'm a little off my game today but that sounds like the stupidest law ever enacted. Whatever happened to freedom of will and freedom of choice?

Wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply say: 'You all can now marry like straight folks and enjoy all the misery involved like the rest of us'? Those not wanting the expense of a wedding could simply go to a justice of the peace with a marriage license.

It sounds like a victory for Gays, yet it's kind of like a spiteful smack in the face. Kind of like 'Ya wanna be married? OK, fine! Now any of you living together are legally married -- so STFU!'

No, it just says that those couples that have domestic partnerships that haven't been married since it was legal to, or who haven't dissolved their domestic partnership will have their status changed from "domestic partnership" to "married". This effectively puts gay marriage on the same level as straight marriage. If you don't want to be married, then you need to legally dissolve your domestic partnership, the same way straight folks have to get divorced.

It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.

You seem to really have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe it's a Canadian thing but in no paperwork that I signed for Common-law refer to it as common-law marriage. I have never seen a single government form on me referring to me as common-law married. Everything I have ever seen simple states Common-law. I know it is semantics but whatever.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

That isn't how it works. Reading is hard. Allow me. IF YOU REGISTERED A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP, you are about to be legally married instead.

This isn't a common law marriage thing, although Washington has that too. This is not that, and it's not as simple as you seem think it is.

Washington does not have common-law marriage. Only Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Utah, Texas and the District of Columbia do. New Hampshire recognizes common-law relationships only for probate purposes, and Utah requires them to be validated by a court order.

Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.

^THIS

Having lived in Washington, unmarried, and having the majority of my stuff taken under "not-common-law marriage" laws, you're basically playing a semantics game.

Rik01:I have a cold, so I'm a little off my game today but that sounds like the stupidest law ever enacted. Whatever happened to freedom of will and freedom of choice?

Wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply say: 'You all can now marry like straight folks and enjoy all the misery involved like the rest of us'? Those not wanting the expense of a wedding could simply go to a justice of the peace with a marriage license.

It sounds like a victory for Gays, yet it's kind of like a spiteful smack in the face. Kind of like 'Ya wanna be married? OK, fine! Now any of you living together are legally married -- so STFU!'

Let's be VERY clear about what domestic partnership in WA meant. It was a "you want to get married but can't, so we'll throw you a bone that has all the state legal ramifications of marriage, but isn't called that" thing.

It was, for all intents and purposes, marriage without the name.

It's ceasing to exist.

Dissolving those partnerships isn't the appropriate thing to do. They're legally already the equivalent of marriage. To dissolve one, you've got to essentially have a divorce.

So they're really just changing the name. And in the process, giving them federal recognition as well as state recognition.

It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.

You seem to really have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe it's a Canadian thing but in no paperwork that I signed for Common-law refer to it as common-law marriage. I have never seen a single government form on me referring to me as common-law married. Everything I have ever seen simple states Common-law. I know it is semantics but whatever.

/Common-law//Not married

The rules are likely somewhat different up in Canada. I think common-law marriage rules stem from "frontier" situations, where access to secular or ecclesiastical authorities might have been limited back in the days of covered wagons and/or stolen brides from local tribes.

If it's been three years since you last saw a Justice of the Peace or a parson and you already have two children, it's a bit late to get that certificate, isn't it? But by all rights, the children should stand to inherit your axe and cabin when the wolves eat you.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage. Fairly standard. That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house. In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.//Except the uncle who owns the house.///*sigh

Marriage is a legal contract, You cannot enter into a contract unless you voluntary sigh it.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage. Fairly standard. That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house. In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.//Except the uncle who owns the house.///*sigh

Marriage is a legal contract, You cannot enter into a contract unless you voluntary sigh it.

You should tell that to the 9 states and DC, which still recognize common law marriage. SCOTUS will also need to be told since they confirmed it applied to any US state that hadn't ruled it out via statute.

ransack.:Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: ransack.: skinink: I now pronounce you Yogi and Boo Boo. You may kiss the bear.

My vomit phone you pay me new phone,

If you vomit when seeing a gay couple, but you don't vomit when you see this picture, you have no case, you perverted bigot. :)

[2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com image 300x225]

PLEASE STOP WHY

I had a girl friend in Vancouver that lived in a basement suite. Her room used to get really reeky in the summer whenever she opened the window. Turns out the dude in the suite above used to piss out his window every night. Pretty sick (but damned funny to me).

Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.

One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.

Nobody needs to point out how lack-witted these idiots are; they do it for themselves.

/But, it's absolutely mind-boggling that an actor could be homophobic.//Jeremy's Iron did attempt a backtrack on his idiotic comments: here.///Third slashy is obligatory.

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage. Fairly standard. That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house. In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.//Except the uncle who owns the house.///*sigh*

In Texas, you can also get "common-law divorced", Stay away from that person for one full calendar year - no contact, no nothing. After a year they no longer have a claim on anything of yours, and you are no longer considered to be married by common-law

Soon, my bretheren and systers, soon we shall march upon their churches, and FORCE them at gunpoint to marry gay couples. We'll even force straight, GOD-Fearing heterosexuals to copulate with the same sex under the bayonettes and arclights of our Gay-concentration camps.

MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm actually surprised that they worded the bill the way they did. Technically, if you've lived with your roommate long enough; congratulations! You're married!

Yeah, that's common-law marriage. Fairly standard. That's how that biatch is going to steal the family house. In another 2 years, she'll be "married", and then she can get divorced and take the house.

/Everyone knows it.//Except the uncle who owns the house.///*sigh*

In some states (most maybe) that is not at all how common law marriage works.

mbillips:insertdip: I'd be pissed. I know this might sound crazy but marriage in our culture carries far to many religious overtones and I want no involvement with it. Obviously people who are non religious get married but for me it feels like if i get married I am somehow giving credit to religion which is something I refuse to do. I don't judge others for doing it and I love a good wedding but it's not something that I'd ever do.

/Common-law//All the same benefits///Just don't call me married

You have no idea what you're talking about. "Common-law" relationships without a marriage license qualify for NO federal benefits. You want the married tax status, you get married, full stop. State benefits vary by state, but most states don't recognize "common-law" relationships for legal purposes. No automatic inheritance, medical rights, nothing. You don't have to have a church wedding to be married; you just go down to the courthouse and a justice of the peace signs the license.

Except, the Federal government and all state governments recognize a common law marriage if it began in a state that recognizes it (basically, if you resided in a state long enough and met the other requirements), with the exception of a homosexual common-law marriage in states that refuse to recognize holosexual marriages.

There are some differences, but they are essentially the same and you specifically can file a joint 1040.

The biggest issue is if it ever gets challenged in court. It is a lot easier to file a claim saying that two people were not really married under common-law than if they signed a marriage certificate.

And, no, you cannot accidentally become part of a common law marriage. Standard requirements are that a couple mutually consents to a common law marriage and/or that they publicly hold themselves to be in a common law marriage. Both of which can often be established by filing a joint tax return, when you both sign a document filed with the government that says you are married.

ciberido:/Which reminds me: Pandora has apparently decided I'm lesbian, based on the number of Tegan and Sarah tracks it keeps throwing at me.//That's what I get for giving indigo girls tracks thumbs up.

Maybe you should confuse it by adding some thumbs up for some Lynyrd Skynyrd and Molly Hatchet songs

My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

It's called Common-law MARRIAGE and it has nothing to do with a church.

You seem to really have no idea what you're talking about.

Maybe it's a Canadian thing but in no paperwork that I signed for Common-law refer to it as common-law marriage. I have never seen a single government form on me referring to me as common-law married. Everything I have ever seen simple states Common-law. I know it is semantics but whatever.

/Common-law//Not married

Common law marriage varies from province to province. In BC it is identical to marriage (and defined by statute), in QC it doesn't exist, different Federal agencies have different definitions to receive various benefits (the CRA's is probably the easiest to meet). The implications of a common law marriage also vary between provinces.

Not by that name, true, but if "the court decides that you've had a stable, "marriage-like" relationship, it can make a "fair and equitable" division of certain types of property and debts acquired during your relationship."Source: http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/resource/washington-property-law-for - unmarried-couples

Short version? You're boned.

You just really bummed me out, but thanks for the info. Farking Christ I hate this state sometimes.

theropod:My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

You can always decide to hold a wedding when and if it suits you, regardless of whether the state considers you married. While it's certainly traditional to hold a wedding at the same time the marriage begins, there have always been occasions when people decided to have one without the other, or to have both but at different times.

theropod:My partner and I entered a civil union in Colorado shortly after they were legalized last year. We made it VERY casual (flashmob ceremony at Red Rocks, no gifts, pay-for-your-own lunch at Hamburger Mary's afterwards). We went into it with the explicit understanding that it was NOT a wedding, otherwise we would've made a bigger deal of it (pay a photographer, invite out-of-state family, etc.). We have grander plans that I only want to do after SSM officially goes nationwide.

If the State of Colorado were to tell us all of a sudden: "Uh, y'all are married now," I would have a problem with that.

Well, you're now on notice that it will probably happen.

Like Washington, you'll likely get a significant amount of notice before it does, so you'll have time to choose to either dissolve, get married, or wait until it becomes a marriage with no action needed on your part.

iron de havilland:Before gay marriage was allowed in parts of the UK, right wing rhetoric was that with the demolition of the biblical union of a man and a woman, it would suddenly be great for fathers to marry their sons for tax purposes.

One of the Tory grandees was the first person I saw proposing this notion. I want to say Lawson, but I may be wrong. But then, Jeremy Irons weighed in on the issue himself, making the exact same point.

Nobody needs to point out how lack-witted these idiots are; they do it for themselves.

/But, it's absolutely mind-boggling that an actor could be homophobic.//Jeremy's Iron did attempt a backtrack on his idiotic comments: here.///Third slashy is obligatory.

I am pro gay marriage, but I think any co-habitating people should be able to get the benefits of "marriage", even if they are related. What would it hurt?